The article is almost completely pointless. First, it doesn't at all acknowledge that reading for pleasure and playing games are not mutually exclusive; people can fit both into their lifestyles. The following sentence clearly references kids who ONLY play games AND do nothing else:
Playing computer games regularly and doing no other activities meant the chances of going to university fell from 24 per cent to 19 per cent for boys and from 20 per cent to 14 per cent for girls.
Well, yeah, if I only play Mousetrap all day AND don't read books, my chances of going to a university are also severely lessened. What's your point?
The article then goes on to point out:
''The main thing I would highlight, because this is the 1970 cohort, when they played video games in 1986, that's not very many people. And the state of video games in 1986 is nothing like it is now.''
So they're basing this on games from 25 years ago?
Finally, the article does an about face at the end and completely contradicts its initial premise:
... Playing computer games frequently did not reduce the likelihood that a 16-year-old would be in a professional or managerial job at 33, the research finds. Mr Taylor's analysis also indicates that children who read books and did one other cultural activity further increased their chances of going to university.
That last sentence essentially proves what I said above; that since reading and playing games are not mutually exclusive, just because you play games doesn't mean you're S.O.L., because you may also be a reader.
This is terrible and misleading "journalism".